Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-42,: Re: Tiny patch: nice 20 as idle priority

# Re: Tiny patch: nice 20 as idle priority

Ian Wehrman (ian@wehrman.com)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:17:24 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Thomas Horsten: "Re: Linux loop device driver bug (and fix)"
- Previous message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Static v Dynamic IP on dial-up?"
- Maybe in reply to: Max: "Tiny patch: nice 20 as idle priority"

just out of curiosity, does your multiple-queue scheme have a snowball's
chance in hell of making it into 2.2? or is this a strictly 2.3
development issue?

later,
ian

Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Lorenzo M. Catucci wrote:
>
> > IMHO, the nice 20 part is not that nice... it is a hack too; much
> > better putting in an explicit SCHED_IDLE policy.
>
> OK, I'll keep that in mind. I now have most votes for
> a separate SCHED_IDLE policy.
>
> But about the multiple-vs-single queue, Linux is better off
> with just two queues, one for RT and one for the rest.
>
> I'm currently running a single-queue system with a load of
> 100+ (100 CPU loops running at nice 0!) and the system remains
> very much responsive... On a P100!
>
> X11amp seems to skip a beat every now and then, however ;)
>
> Rik.
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
> | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    --
    ian@wehrman.com
    georgia institute of technology

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Thomas Horsten: "Re: Linux loop device driver bug (and fix)"
- Previous message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Static v Dynamic IP on dial-up?"
- Maybe in reply to: Max: "Tiny patch: nice 20 as idle priority"